Interference on Bunt Question

[reagansdaddy]

Question for the umps and rule guys/gals out there.

Batter bunts ball and it dies just in front of home plate. Batter is slow out of the box and bumps into catcher as she is coming out for the ball. Catcher gathers herself and makes play at first. However, this slows the process down and allows a runner to score from third.

I argued for interference and a dead ball that would have kept the runner at third. Was I right? I didn't argue too much because I wasn't 100% sure. Thanks!

 

[canyonjoe]

Without seeing it, I would say you are right.

 

[Comp]

I dont remember where I have seen the case play or clarification, but generally speaking accepted that batted balls may end up right near home plate and you have a batter and a catcher in very close proximity likely to get tangle up. The runner is suppose to run, the catcher is suppose to field the ball and as long as the runner is doing nothing other than advancing and the catcher trying to field the ball and they collide it is nothing.

You say the batter was slow out of the box, in that situation you could possibly rule interference if the catcher had already moved out to field the ball and then the batter ran into them. But, if it was more or less a mutual collision as both players were moving out, it is nothing.

 

[reagansdaddy]

I dont remember where I have seen the case play or clarification, but generally speaking accepted that batted balls may end up right near home plate and you have a batter and a catcher in very close proximity likely to get tangle up. The runner is suppose to run, the catcher is suppose to field the ball and as long as the runner is doing nothing other than advancing and the catcher trying to field the ball and they collide it is nothing.

You say the batter was slow out of the box, in that situation you could possibly rule interference if the catcher had already moved out to field the ball and then the batter ran into them. But, if it was more or less a mutual collision as both players were moving out, it is nothing.

That makes sense. I don't think the girl was intentionally slow out of the box. I had just never seen our catcher beat a girl coming out of her catcher's stance, usually the runner is past, but this ball was literally just in front of the plate. I would say it was a mutual collision and so the umps got it right. My primary argument was that it allowed a run to score, but it looks like it's just a part of the game. Thanks for the response!

I remember a play in the 75 World Series in Cincy when Ed Armbrister bunted and got tangled up with Carlton Fisk with no interference call being made which was a major turning point in the game. That thought was in my head when I went out to discuss it with the umpire, so I thought I might be wrong before I even got to him.

 

[Umpireernie]

Comp, isn't F2 making intitial play on batted ball. NFHS specifically addresses "intilal play". While USA does not specifically mention "intilal play on batted ball" we do give fielders the right to play the batted ball; it's the one time a defensive player without the ball has right of way over an offensive player.

So no matter if BR is "slow out of box" if BR interferes with F2 and in my judgement F2 was going to field the batted ball then we have INT. By same token if BR runs into F2 who is running after battted ball that's going to be fielded by another fielder then we have OBS by F2.

As another example: R1 at 2B. B2 hits grounder toward F6. R1 is (a) slow to leave 2B or (b) is off with pitch. In both (a) and (b) R1 runs into F6 who does not have ball but is moving to field batted ball and is the obvious player to field the ball. In both (a) and (b) we're going to have INT, right? It doesn't matter how fast runner is about leaving base. Why would this different in front of home plate on a bunt?

 

[MTR]

Comp, isn't F2 making intitial play on batted ball. NFHS specifically addresses "intilal play". While USA does not specifically mention "intilal play on batted ball" we do give fielders the right to play the batted ball; it's the one time a defensive player without the ball has right of way over an offensive player.

So no matter if BR is "slow out of box" if BR interferes with F2 and in my judgement F2 was going to field the batted ball then we have INT. By same token if BR runs into F2 who is running after battted ball that's going to be fielded by another fielder then we have OBS by F2.

Comp's response is absolutely correct. Unless one does something to deter the other, just let the play run its course.

As another example: R1 at 2B. B2 hits grounder toward F6. R1 is (a) slow to leave 2B or (b) is off with pitch. In both (a) and (b) R1 runs into F6 who does not have ball but is moving to field batted ball and is the obvious player to field the ball. In both (a) and (b) we're going to have INT, right? It doesn't matter how fast runner is about leaving base. Why would this different in front of home plate on a bunt?

Not relevant to the other. The plate area is the only place on the field where the rule-mandated position of each player places each in direct conflict (crossing each other's path) to perform the duties required in this particular instance.